Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:3916 comp.os.386bsd.questions:14169 comp.os.linux.development:18494 comp.os.linux.misc:28603 sci.electronics:83053 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!hookup!olivea!sgigate.sgi.com!sgiblab!gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!barrnet.net!Reason.cdrom.com!oz.cdrom.com!jkh From: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,sci.electronics Subject: Re: 16550 detection Date: 02 Nov 1994 07:19:56 GMT Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 21 Message-ID: <JKH.94Nov1231956@freefall.cdrom.com> References: <m0r2XH0-000MhFC@kitana> NNTP-Posting-Host: freefall.cdrom.com In-reply-to: kitana!sysop@caprica.com's message of 1 Nov 1994 22:35:12 -0600 In article <m0r2XH0-000MhFC@kitana> kitana!sysop@caprica.com (JL Gomez) writes: I've e-mail someone using a BOCA 2016 using 8 ports at 115K what their load was on the CPU. He replied 3% under Linux. Says alot about the serial driver. Or a lot about creative statistics. 8 ports doing 115.2K continuous. With what? A test rig, driving those ports at full data rate with checksummed data? With error checking on the Linux side to make sure that this information was actually *getting* there and not simply being tossed? I'm not knocking Linux, but I'd distrust claims like this under FreeBSD just as highly. People are very often prone to make them after the most dubious of testing procedures and even, distressingly, after no testing procedures at all! The old "well, it did that on 1 port, it'll do that * 8 on 8 ports! Yeah! Gee, statistics sure are simple when you cut all the corners off!" :-) Jordan